Public debate for online gambling laws

Republican and openly hostile towards online gambling, James Leach was recently confronted by reputed industry personality in a public debate on the ongoing legal issues related to online gambling.
The reports about the debate seem to reflect that the gambling testament finished best.
Chief Executive Officer from the online gaming company BetonSports, David Carruthers, took on US Congressman Jim Leach in an interactive debate made earlier last week. The issue at stake was Leach's anti-gambling allegations made to support his most recent proposal.
The debate took place over an email exchange hosted, mediated and conducted by the Wall Street Journal Online.
Since the end of the debate, the Journal undertook a poll in which over eighty percent of the 10, 000 respondents agreed with Carruthers in the legalization of online gambling in America.
 Originally from Iowa, Leach sponsored a bill with the intention of disabling the online gambling industry via the banking sector. The bill has progressed to a sub-committee and has been referred to the full House Judiciary Committee for further hearings.
The two men debated the merits of the bill. The intention of which is to utilize the banking industry to monitor, and police, online gambling sites. This way they can prohibit the use of credit cards, checks and even money transfers for the use of making wagers online.
Carruther's central argument was that for all the reasons that those like Leach wanted to ban the industry, are the identical reasons he believes the industry should be regulated.
Leach's core reason for prohibiting online gambling was that it eroded money from the country into criminal hands.
Alternatively, his opposition asserts that by illegalizing gambling you are not essentially stopping it, instead you are forcing it to go underground leaving the most vulnerable exposed.
At some point in the email-exchange debate, Carruthers invited Leach to visit the company's compounds in Costa Rica. However, Leach declined the offer, insisting it was morally unethical and bordering on illegal. There is another option to meet face to face.

Generally, most agree that Carruthers argued a very convincing and credible stand point.

Back to Lastest Gambling News
Back to Gambling News Archive
Back to Gambling News - April 2006 Archive